Hi Chevan,
I was a volunteer at an Israeli kibbutz in northern Israel for about six months 1979-80.
Visited the Golan Heights about four or five times, including some battlefields of 1973 war that occurred six years earlier. 
Knocked out Syrian T-62 from 1973 war on the Golan Heights - photo taken by me in late summer or early fall 1979.
Israeli Centurion tanks in the background on the Golan Heights - photo taken by me in late summer or early fall 1979.
Well, you can, and do, believe whatever you want to believe.
Hmnn. Well i would like to learn something about British testings of the Soviets tank.
So would I.
The scientifical method ,my friend , demands the exact instrument of statistic.
But what statistic do we have in the war?
The every side hide its own casualties and exaggerate the enemy ones. This is simpe politic/propogand.Nothing strange.
I think I agree with that? However, the Syrians, with overwhelming firepower, were defeated in the Golan. Now thatās what I call a statistic.
I/m not in Ukraine my friend, and never was there for last 15 years:)
Well, I never! You certainly had me fooled. Iāll never see you in the same light again!
So, having established that you are Russian, did you truly not cast your voteā¦no need to state for whom you voted if you didā¦
ā¦or, did you vote and are simply afraid to let Kato see that you collaborated with a democratic process? 
Oh George , excellent photos.
Thank you.
You certainly right about T-62.
However i have a little doubt , do you know why?
You could see a lot of the WW2 era photos where the Germans Tigers and Panthers were showed with the holes in the frontal armor.
Officially the gun of the T-34-85 or Sherman did not penetrate it from a long distance , but we could see the photos:)
Becouse probably those tanks were tested after the battles - the Allies tankes simly shooted them from diffenrent sides and distance.
The Tiger2 after hiting of the different tank guns , the few holes in the frontal armor are visible.
But did those photo prove that the Soviet T-34 could penetrate the frontal armor of Tiger2 from any ditance?
We doubt it , right.
Coz there are exest the special ballistic/armor non-combat testings that proved other.
Thatās true, we have a freedom of religion:)
So would I.
You would not, but i would very glad if you will post here some of resault of those British testings:)
I think this might be very interesting.
I think I agree with that? However, the Syrians, with overwhelming firepower, were defeated in the Golan. Now thatās what I call a statistic.
This is still , notā¦
Soviets also won the Kursk battle finally.
Does it mean that they knocked out the Germans tanks by hundreds per minute:)
As it told the Soviet official propoganda?
Or does it mean that Germans have won this battle coz they hited 5 soviets tanks per ONE GErmans as it the Germans propogand told?
Well, I never! You certainly had me fooled. Iāll never see you in the same light again!
So, having established that you are Russian, did you truly not cast your voteā¦no need to state for whom you voted if you didā¦
No i did not vote at all.
Coz i do not like the Putin. He is not democrat (he too like the oligarhs) , so he certainly would like to Kato:)
ā¦or, did you vote and are simply afraid to let Kato see that you collaborated with a democratic process?
Certainly i afraid the Kato.
Coz the man who like the Taliban Afganistan as the ONLY one place in the globe where he could hide of Democracy:D
He was obviously not joking:)
So i better will not go at the Democratic election at all, coz i fear for my life:)
Do not wish give the Kato the additional occasion to blame me in supporting of the democracy:)
The Egyptian surprise in 1973 was the result of good all around planning by Egyptās best commander who was wholly competent, and the use to Soviet missiles: both SAMs and Saggers, that created an impenetrable screen against Israeli tanks, men, and aircraft in what was to be a limited incursion and a battle to wear down the IDF. It was only when they surged forward to assist the Syrians that were being destroyed despite overwhelming advantages (as Sadat ordered while discarding his commanderās plans) that the Israeli Air Force was able to commit to ground support and the IDF armor and infantry were able to launch a āFall Gelbā type thrust to split the Egyptian defense and begin wiping out their SAM and AA batteries, of which the IDF had no countermeasure too then and had suffered egregious lossesā¦
And the plan to reduce Israeli anti-tank sand barriers was the stroke of genius of an Egyptian combat engineer, not advice of Soviet military advisers. The Egyptians fought fairly well when not being carpet bombed by the IDF air force. And we can certainly credit some Soviet expertise, but we could also credit the British whose Army Egypt was patterned along and originally trained by if Iām not mistakenā¦
Israel of course did this after substantial reinforcements of equipment from the USā¦The fact is that, at least in Syrian hands, the Soviet made tanks were reduced to scrap in actual tank vs. tank engagements, and the T-54/55 series did not stand up well against Western optics, armor, and the 105mm gun. We can attempt to blame this all on the Syrian incompetence. But this ignores the fact that the IDF (itself far from the overwhelming juggernaut some love to think it is) was fighting a two front battle after incurring significant lossesā¦
Oh those brilliant Egyptian command and soldiers.
I/m sure they should win the war if no the Soviet obsolet T-54/55:)
Israel of course did this after substantial reinforcements of equipment from the USā¦The fact is that, at least in Syrian hands, the Soviet made tanks were reduced to scrap in actual tank vs. tank engagements, and the T-54/55 series did not stand up well against Western optics, armor, and the 105mm gun. We can attempt to blame this all on the Syrian incompetence. But this ignores the fact that the IDF (itself far from the overwhelming juggernaut some love to think it is) was fighting a two front battle after incurring significant lossesā¦
Oh common Nick.
There is no ābetter optic and armorā inded in comparition with the contemporary ( at that time) soviet tanks.
And even the famouse 105 mm L701 in the mid-end of the 1960yy wasnāt so great agains the newest Soviet
115 -mm smooth-bore gun 2A46 ( T-62) and the 125-mm (T-64).
The SOviet shell had equal ballisic and penetration ability with more the explosive effect.
The what the Isreali really had better - the Western mass media symphaty and finantial support ( traditionally:) We all know why))And the better intellect over arabs ( also it was very fairly proved via the history)
Even the poorest Vietnamese and the Chinese were much better soldiers then the arabs with his Middle-East mentality :).
Chevan,
So, youāve found religion?
As much as I would like to oblige, I no longer have access to M.O.D. documents that are not in the public domain.
The thirty year gap between Kursk and Yom Kippur witnessed remarkable advances in telecommunications and satellite technology. Couple that with the access afforded to the various press agencies by both sides, but by the IDF in particular, I doubt that there is any comparison between the reporting of Kursk and Yom Kippur.
Can you not make a protest vote or do you simply allow Putin to have it all his own way?
Now, as entertaining as you are, I am afraid that, with āend of financial yearā approaching like an express train, I will not be able to give you my full attention. However, feel free to remark as I will jump on here now and then to catch the action.
Youāre welcome Chevan, thanks for the compliments.
Well, although itās been almost 30 years ago, I donāt recall seeing any other entry holes in the T-62ās armor other than the one indicated on the glacis plate. It should be no surprise as there was little difference in armor protection between the T-62 and the T-54/55.
The T-62 was just a further development of the T-54/55 series tanks. Hull front glacis plate thickness of T-54/55/62 was the same at 100mm. Compare that to the 110mm glacis plate thickness of the American M-48 and M-60 series tanks and 152mm glacis plate thickness of the British Centurion. The Russian tank designers also put some faith in the lower profile of the series to provide a smaller target. One difference between T-62 and earlier T-54/55 was in the armament. The T-62 with 115mm smoothbore gun versus the T54/55 with 100mm gun.
I have more material that Iāve gathered last night, but am not finished yet. I will be busy this evening, but plan to post more later this week.
Also, I will check for gun versus armor comparisons on these tanks.
Cheers
Nope
i/m ateist.
The Egorka is believer, but he believe in other things.
As much as I would like to oblige, I no longer have access to M.O.D. documents that are not in the public domain.
So yo could present the rsaults of British tests of Soviets tanks?
The thirty year gap between Kursk and Yom Kippur witnessed remarkable advances in telecommunications and satellite technology. Couple that with the access afforded to the various press agencies by both sides, but by the IDF in particular, I doubt that there is any comparison between the reporting of Kursk and Yom Kippur.
Oh common my friend.
Has the telecommunications and satellite technology prevented the political falsification of CIA reports about " MDW of Saddam" in the 2004?
The Poliy and propoganda are almost the same thing when the states near in a war.
Can you not make a protest vote or do you simply allow Putin to have it all his own way?
Sure i would like to protest.
But there is a little problem/
Iāve read theat the US State Department has allocated about 400 000 $ for ādevelopment of Democraty in Russiaā.This is a monay for everybody who will public the anti-Putins materials:)
So im searching the way - how to snatch a part of those monay.
If somebody will pay for me - i will write critic agains Putin:)
This is the first principle of Democracy:no payment - no work ( we are not in Communist USSR to work free)
But , those american sponsors still did not wish to notice my honest democratic impulses.
They sponsor the all sort of (mostly non-russian) bsā¦rd , but not me:)
It so pityfull.
COz i/m really know how to beat the Putinās regime:D
Now, as entertaining as you are, I am afraid that, with āend of financial yearā approaching like an express train, I will not be able to give you my full attention. However, feel free to remark as I will jump on here now and then to catch the action.
OK i will carefully watch for you jumps.
Just do not jump too high, remember about ceiling:)
Actually it was the Israeli air force that really made the difference, not their tanks. But as for Soviet military advice:
[i]Operation Stouthearted Men
By October 11, Bar-Lev and his division commanders (Generals Major Ariel Sharon and Avrahan āBrenā Adan, had constructed a plan to penetrate the Egyptian lines. Entitled āOperation Stouthearted Menā (Abiray-Lev in Hebrew), it took advantage of a key discovery Sharonās reconnaissance units had made: a major gap existed between the Egyptian defensive lines on the eastern bank of the canal, between 2nd and 3rd Army near Deversoir. In an apparent major planning error, the Egyptian unit which had defended that section of the line had been ordered north, with no unit ever being tasked to take its place. Standard Soviet war doctrine mandated unwavering obedience to the Central Operations Plan and provided commanders with as little intelligence as was necessary to complete their individual roles. This resulted in the commanders of neither 2nd nor 3rd Army ever bothering to verify the integrity of their flank, each assuming the gap had been filled by the other without bothering to inform them.[/i]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_The_Chinese_Farm
There is no ābetter optic and armorā inded in comparition with the contemporary ( at that time) soviet tanks.
And even the famouse 105 mm L701 in the mid-end of the 1960yy wasnāt so great agains the newest Soviet
115 -mm smooth-bore gun 2A46 ( T-62) and the 125-mm (T-64).
The SOviet shell had equal ballisic and penetration ability with more the explosive effect.
The what the Isreali really had better - the Western mass media symphaty and finantial support ( traditionally:) We all know why))And the better intellect over arabs ( also it was very fairly proved via the history)
Even the poorest Vietnamese and the Chinese were much better soldiers then the arabs with his Middle-East mentality :).
Um, the 105mm did just fine against Soviet armor. And I recall hearing or reading upon the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1983 that the M-60A1ās L7 gun could not defeat the newest T-72 operated by the Syrians, yet the Israelis had little trouble with them. Firstly, Iām not sure the armor penetration tables really say what you want them too as the Soviets tended to exaggerate the claims regarding weaponry. As for everything Iāve ever heard, the 100mm and 115mm Soviet guns were inadequate and to this day many nations have upgraded them by replacing the T-55s main armament with the L7 105mm gun.
In any case, the Israeli tanks, dug in, wiped out over 25% of the Egyptian Soviet made armor in a matter of hours. From the above Wiki Wiki Wiki link, a nice summation of what I stated before:
In the midst of this planning period, on October 14 the Egyptians launched a second coordinated offensive against the entire Israeli line from their strongpoints on the eastern bank of the Sinai. Personally ordered by President Anwar Sadat at the pleading of the thinly-stretched Syrians in the Golan Heights, and received with horror by his General Staff, the attack was a massive and near-suicidal frontal attack straight into the guns of the newly-buttressed Israeli defenses. Sadat made no pretense of attempting a breakthrough, but now sought merely to harass the Israelis and deny them any opportunity to reassign any of their (largely idle) Southern Front forces to the now-critical battles ongoing in the Golan Heights. In the largest tank battle since World War II[2], the Egyptian force of 1,000 tanks and 5,000 mechanized infantry faced 800 expertly dug-in and camouflaged Israeli tanks and their supporting infantry. By the end of the day, the Egyptians had lost 260 tanks and had suffered over 1,000 casualties. The Israeli losses were 8 tanks and 19 infantry. [3] This provided precisely the sort of disruption the Israelis needed. Operation Stouthearted Men was set to start at dawn, October 15.
I think the results speak for themselves, as the Egyptian forces, which had inflicted heavy casualties on the IDF in the days prior, now brokeā¦
Oh George i, have alwayls a lot of it for you:)
Well, although itās been almost 30 years ago, I donāt recall seeing any other entry holes in the T-62ās armor other than the one indicated on the glacis plate. It should be no surprise as there was little difference in armor protection between the T-62 and the T-54/55.
The T-62 was just a further development of the T-54/55 series tanks. Hull front glacis plate thickness of T-54/55/62 was the same at 100mm. Compare that to the 110mm glacis plate thickness of the American M-48 and M-60 series tanks and 152mm glacis plate thickness of the British Centurion. The Russian tank designers also put some faith in the lower profile of the series to provide a smaller target. One difference between T-62 and earlier T-54/55 was in the armament. The T-62 with 115mm smoothbore gun versus the T54/55 with 100mm gun.
Yo absolutly right
The T-62 was last modification on T-54 chassis.
ABout the thickness of armor of T-62 was a bit less than the M-60 , but do not forget that the both Centurion and M-60 were the HEAVY tanks.All soviets were the MEDIUM.The 37 tonns T-62 was much more speedy and maneuvreable. Plus the smoothbore 115 mm ( the First in the world practice) gun D81 ( or 2A26) was very effective agains any heavy tanks also.Sure each tanks had its own strong and weak sides, but finallyā¦ we have the Medium tank equal the heavy one.
I have more material that Iāve gathered last night, but am not finished yet. I will be busy this evening, but plan to post more later this week.
Also, I will check for gun versus armor comparisons on these tanks.
This should be great , thank you for that in advance
Firstly since the 1967 into the service has been entered the newest T-64 with 125 mm shooth-bore 2A46 that AT shell could penetrate even the frontal armor of the M60.
Secondary you tangle the two thinng- actually some of obsolet ( 40-30 years) T-55 were re-armed with the L7 gun, but the reason was JUST becouse the Soviets disinged and developed new gun 125 mm that was almost twice effective agains old 100 mm.
Although soviet still had the limited number of old 100 guns on stores- the Soviet industry did not produse it .
It was merely not possiblly to place this gun in the tight T-55
So the 105 mm L7 was enough compromise desigion , especially if to keep in mind that there vere enough any sort of Shells avialable for that gun in world military market.
In any case, the Israeli tanks, dug in, wiped out over 25% of the Egyptian Soviet made armor in a matter of hours. From the above Wiki Wiki Wiki link, a nice summation of what I stated before:
ā¦
In the largest tank battle since World War II[2], the Egyptian force of 1,000 tanks and 5,000 mechanized infantry faced 800 expertly dug-in and camouflaged Israeli tanks and their supporting infantry. By the end of the day, the Egyptians had lost 260 tanks and had suffered over 1,000 casualties. The Israeli losses were 8 tanks and 19 infantry
You are Nick an old chap , but still belive in childish fary tells:)
Today even Isreal official datas of tank loses in October war of 1973 are over 800 , half of them were hited by the AT-rockets āMalutkaā( although about 200-300 later had been restored).Beside about 2000 of tank were hited but were still in service.
After the war almost half of that tanks were written off service and replaced by the new tanks.
I think the results speak for themselves, as the Egyptian forces, which had inflicted heavy casualties on the IDF in the days prior, now brokeā¦
The resaults speak for winners:)
Not for themself
The M-60/A1/A2/A3 series was a medium tank. I think he confusion is that the tank evolved from the Pershing M-26 which originally was classified as a heavy tank, but reclassified medium after the Warā¦
I think the Centurion was a medium as well; as both the British and Americans have similar heavy tanks to counter the IS3, with similar problems: the M-103 and the Conqueror tankā¦
I dodnāt know what you call as the Meduum tank, but even the heavest soviet Is-3 was just 46 tonns.
The Centurion - 50 tonns, M-60A1 46( 50 tonns of lateat modificatios) tonns as well.
Sure it was not 60 tonns Abrams, but thoughā¦
Firstly, weāre talking about the Israeli Sherman, which then went to the subject of the Yom Kippur War, which has now gone to: my tank is better than your tank! The T-64 was never deployed in the numbers of other Soviet tanks, and I doubt the Egyptians had more than a few, if any at all --Iāll check tomorrow. But the fact is that the British designed 105mm was an excellent gun. And on the defensive, the Israelis had few problems inflicting tank lossesā¦
You are Nick an old chap , but still belive in childish fary tells:)
You mean the disparity of numbers? Maybe, but weāre also only talking about one particular battle here. The link also told that the Israelis suffered horrendous casualties in the early days of the conflict mainly due to Sagger missiles. And the Egyptian forces overran almost all of the Israeli defensive fortifications in the canal area. So the battle is shown as hardly one sidedā¦
Today even Isreal official datas of tank loses in October war of 1973 are over 800 ,
Of course, if you read the link, the Egyptian Army led them into an ambush that savaged their armor! Weāre talking about one particular battle where the Israelis used their tanks and AT weapons in defensive positions to blunt an Egyptian attackā¦
half of them were hited by the AT-rockets āMalutkaā( although about 200-300 later had been restored).Beside about 2000 of tank were hited but were still in service.
After the war almost half of that tanks were written off service and replaced by the new tanks.The resaults speak for winners:)
Not for themself
No. The results are that youāre failing to read into the whole battle, and are only focusing on one part of it where the IDF turned the tideā¦
Yes well, those classifications are obsolete. The M-60 series came out in the late 50s to early 60s. The Abrams in the late 1970s. The IS-3 was designed in 1943(?)ā¦
The Centurion was around at the end of the War, but was vastly upgradedā¦
They Syrians had a number of tanks in the 1973, Egypth as well.
True we told initially about Srerman, but you in last post mean T-54/55 that couldn be compared with Sherman equally.
You mean the disparity of numbers? Maybe, but weāre also only talking about one particular battle here. The link also told that the Israelis suffered horrendous casualties in the early days of the conflict mainly due to Sagger missiles. And the Egyptian forces overran almost all of the Israeli defensive fortifications in the canal area. So the battle is shown as hardly one sidedā¦
Yes i mean the foolish numbers of casualties.
I knew about most of Israeli tanks were lost in not Tank vs Tank battles. But do not forget that the ISreal aviation and artillery ( i do not tell about infantry armed with AT means) also hited the Arabs tanks.
BTW do you have any detailed statistic of loses ( reason of loses, figures and ets)?
Of course, if you read the link, the Egyptian Army led them into an ambush that savaged their armor! Weāre talking about one particular battle where the Israelis used their tanks and AT weapons in defensive positions to blunt an Egyptian attackā¦
I/ve read enough different articles about that war.
I just wish to point you that you could not make the conclusion of absolute superior Israel tank from this battle.We need the detailed report of it to make the certain conclusison.
No. The results are that youāre failing to read into the whole battle, and are only focusing on one part of it where the IDF turned the tideā¦
Nick just do not tell me that i canāt read:)
I have told you that the āresaultā strongly depend on the side of conflict, coz any side has the tend to exaggerate its military activity.
This is my point.
And i do not see the reason to exclude the Isreal of this list.
This is true rule for all of sides of conflict, is it not?
Really Soviet classification obsolete?
We still produse the 40 tonn T-80 and T-72:)
And they are MEDIUM tanks.
The limite 50-60 tonn is rather HEAVY.Sure the M-60 could be between the classification , but it still essentially higher that the Soviet 38 tonn T-64( That BTW had a equal armor:), is it not?
Chevan
I could argue that there is a world of difference between searching for something that doesnāt exist (or, at best, no longer insitu) , and that which is strewn about the battlefield for even a blind man to trip over. However, I wont, if only because I know that youāre wind-up merchant.
I donāt believe there is any such being as an atheist. Iāve met people who claim to be atheists, but I have seen too many of them become believers when the time comes.
The last person I had a discussion about atheism, was with a friend of mine last Christmas. He said he was ninety-nine per cent certain that there is no God. I argued that that is illogical; he is ninety-nine per cent convinced, and his conviction would evaporate in an instant, given certain circumstances.
I could accept that youāre an agnostic.
Thatās why the US simply calls its tanks Main Battle Tanks or MBTs. Because weight is essentially meaningless now. The US has also endeavoured to create light āStrykerā units with mixed success, after the Bosnian conflict showed that M-1s were often too heavy to move effectivelyā¦